The Mind Faculty Cannot Merely Perceive Significant Dharma Objects

Question: Some say: "The mind is like the edge of a sword; it cannot cut itself." This refers to the seventh consciousness, the mental faculty, also known as the manas consciousness. The Buddha taught that this seventh consciousness is called the mental faculty because it is the dynamic force that causes the seeds of the mental consciousness to manifest from the eighth consciousness. The mental consciousness relies on the mental attention (manaskara) of the manas consciousness to manifest, and after manifestation, it operates entirely based on the mental attention of the mental faculty, the manas consciousness. Therefore, it is said that the manas consciousness is the root of the mental consciousness. The particular investigative wisdom (pratiniyata-prajñā) of this mental faculty is extremely inferior; it can only perform very simple discernment regarding the mental objects (dharmas) on the five sense objects — for example, whether there are major changes in the mental objects on the five sense objects? This seventh consciousness is not like the mental consciousness, the perceiving mind, which can operate skillfully with the five object-specific mental factors (pratiniyata-caittas); it does not possess the mental factors of "desire (chanda), conviction (adhimokṣa), mindfulness (smṛti), and concentration (samādhi)," and its function of the wisdom mental factor (pratiniyata-prajñā) is also extremely inferior, being able only to make very simple discernments regarding changes in the mental objects.

Thus, since it cannot even discern the five sense objects, it must arouse the mental consciousness, and then relying on the particular investigative wisdom of the mental consciousness, it can engage in various contemplations regarding all phenomena. How then could it have the ability to introspect itself? How could it have the ability to contemplate all dharmas? How could it have the ability to correct its own mental conduct and habits? Therefore, although this seventh consciousness is extremely acute and can universally perceive all dharmas, and can also rely on the particular investigative wisdom of the mental consciousness to act as the master everywhere and at all times, and can contemplate and determine various mental activities; yet, if separated from the particular investigative wisdom of the mental consciousness, it is incapable of any action. Due to this nature, the Buddha said that the mind (the mental faculty, the manas consciousness) is like the sharp edge of a sword (metaphor for its acuity in universally perceiving all dharmas. Although the mental consciousness possesses particular investigative wisdom, it cannot universally perceive all dharmas), yet it cannot cut itself (metaphor for its lack of the "self-verifying awareness" (svasamvedana) aspect of particular investigative wisdom, thus it cannot correct its own wholesome or unwholesome mental conduct). This means that for this consciousness to "desire to change its defiled nature, to desire to transform into a pure mental faculty," it must rely on the particular investigative wisdom and contemplative wisdom of the mental consciousness to effect any transformation; it cannot eliminate its own corresponding afflictions solely by its own function. Therefore, the Buddha said the mind is like the edge of a sword; it cannot cut itself."
The above passage feels somehow off; could you analyze and explain it?

Answer: Saying that the mental faculty only discerns significant mental objects contradicts the Buddha's teaching that the mental faculty silently encompasses all dharmas. Since the mental faculty can universally perceive all dharmas, then it can perceive any dharma whatsoever; there is nothing it cannot perceive. Yet, the above text states that the mental faculty only perceives mental objects on the five sense objects, and moreover, only significant, changing ones, imposing so many limitations. If there are so many dharmas the mental faculty cannot universally perceive, this contradicts the Buddha's principle that the mental faculty universally perceives all dharmas.

For example, consider observing the sun. One can observe it for an hour, or even half a day or a full day. Within an hour, the sun undergoes no significant changes. Why then can the mental consciousness continue observing it? Does the mental faculty not perceive the unchanging sun? What dharmas the mental faculty perceives determine what dharmas the mental consciousness is qualified to discern. What the mental consciousness knows, what the six consciousnesses discern, are all dharmas that the mental faculty has decided to perceive and discern. How could the mental faculty only perceive mental objects on the five sense objects, and moreover, only significant, changing ones? The Śūraṅgama Sūtra states that the mental faculty silently encompasses all dharmas. If the mental faculty could not perceive subtle and minute objects of the six dusts (sense objects), it would not be silently encompassing all dharmas. Then, the six consciousnesses would never know those subtle and minute objects of the six dusts.

If the mental faculty lacked desire (chanda), had no intention to act, the six consciousnesses would never be produced, and no phenomena would appear at all. When the eye consciousness selects purple from a multitude of colors, it is decided by the mental faculty. This shows that the mental faculty also perceives the objects of the five dusts; only then can it act as the master, enabling the six consciousnesses to discern that specific object of the five dusts. If the mental faculty did not perceive or contact the objects of the five dusts, the five sense consciousnesses would not arise to discern the objects of the five dusts, and there would be no selectivity regarding the objects of the five dusts. If there were dharmas the mental faculty could not perceive, then the mental faculty would not be universally perceiving all dharmas.

If the mental faculty lacked conviction (adhimokṣa), always being muddled, it could not act as the master, nor could it perform correct, reasonable, true, and dharmic actions. It could not avoid danger, nor could it transform consciousness into wisdom. If the mental faculty lacked mindfulness (smṛti), it could not cause the mental consciousness to manifest mindfulness; no dharma could appear. One could not recite the Buddha's name, nor would one wish to investigate Chan; no phenomena would appear. If the mental faculty could not contemplate, the mental consciousness's influence on the mental faculty would be meaningless, and it certainly could not transform consciousness into wisdom; no wisdom would ever appear. If the mental faculty lacked concentration (samādhi), no matter how much the six consciousnesses practiced concentration, they could never achieve stability.

If the mental faculty could not correct wholesome and unwholesome mental conduct, then mental conduct could never be changed; evil would remain evil forever. How then could one subdue afflictions, let alone eradicate them? The mental consciousness influencing the mental faculty would achieve no result at all, rendering the effort futile. The above passage states that the mental faculty lacks introspective power, lacks the self-verifying awareness (svasamvedana), yet the Buddha taught that all eight consciousnesses possess self-verifying awareness. Sentient beings trust themselves so much, are extremely stubborn — this is the functioning of the mental faculty's self-verifying awareness. Being stubborn to the point of death, firmly believing without doubt, this is the mental faculty's self-verifying awareness; it simply believes itself to be right.

The mental faculty has the function of constant examination and contemplation. All dharmas must pass through its examination and approval before they can proceed, before choices can be made. If the mental faculty's wisdom were always so inferior, how could it reasonably examine, approve, and make wise choices? If it could not make wise choices, the bodily, verbal, and mental actions of sentient beings would constantly and everywhere display foolishness and lack of wisdom. How then could intelligent people exist in the world? How could one study Buddhism to attain wisdom and become a Buddha? Furthermore, if the mental faculty contemplates, it should rely on its own inherent wisdom to contemplate. How could it rely on the particular investigative wisdom of the mental consciousness to contemplate? This claim is too strange; it's like saying person A must rely on person B's wisdom to think about a problem, borrowing person B's brain. This doesn't conform to even the slightest logic. The above passage contains too many errors; I will analyze it in detail when I have time later.